The Outstanding Young Farmers Program is a national annual award that
recognizes farmers exemplifying excellence in their profession and promoting the
contribution of agriculture. As this year's Atlantic regional winners, Mark and
Sally Bernard will compete for the national award to be held this November in
Charlottetown.

The Bernards own and operate Barnyard Organics, an organic, self-sustaining
mixed farm that combines the best of traditional farming methods with the latest
technology. Their business model has so far proven very successful, and they
have managed to grow and diversify.

Mark and Sally and their children are exactly the kind of passionate and
entrepreneurial young farmers who are having a positive impact not only on the
agricultural industry of P.E.I., but also in their local community. Both are
involved with the Summerside Presbyterian Church and Sally sits on a number of
boards, including the executive of the board for the Atlantic Canadian Organic
Regional Network.

I invite all honourable senators to join me in congratulating the Bernards on
their wonderful achievement and to wish them the best as they compete at the
national level later this year.

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, today I wish to draw your
attention to the results of a recent study on the number of visible minority
women occupying senior management positions in the Greater Toronto Area. The
results show that they are seriously under-represented.

[English]

The study was conducted by Ryerson University's Diversity Institute and its
findings were published on March 8 in honour of International Women's Day.

The report, entitled Women in Senior Leadership Positions: A Profile of
the Greater Toronto Area, measured the representation of women, including
visible minorities, in leadership positions in seven sectors, including elected
and public office.

The study is based on data collected in 5,081 senior leadership roles in the
GTA. The results show us that women account for 51.3 per cent of residents in
the GTA, but occupy only 28 per cent of these more than 5,000 positions.

Honourable senators, I am concerned about the neglect of our visible minority
women. The statistics are even more troubling when looking at the representation
of female visible minorities. They account for only 2.6 per cent of all leaders
in the GTA. This means that there are only 131 visible minority women in senior
positions in the GTA. Meanwhile, they represent more than 25 per cent of the
overall population. What is worse, they represent less than 1 per cent of
corporate sector leaders and only 6.6 per cent of elected officials.

Honourable senators, Canada's banks are leading the way around the world. Why
are our financial institutions and corporations not fully representative of
Canada's cultural mosaic? Why are women of Indian, African, and Asian descent
not sitting on more boards and occupying more corner offices on Bay Street? I
may not have the answer to these questions, but what I do know is that our major
Canadian corporations need to be more proactive in finding ways to increase the
representation of female visible minorities.

There are hundreds of highly qualified visible minority women who deserve
equal opportunities. Organizations need to find ways to recruit within this vast
pool of talent and to promote more visible minorities to senior and executive
positions.

The Royal Bank of Canada, Canada's largest bank, understands the business
case for diversity. In 2010, it received the prestigious Catalyst Award for
Diversity because of its exceptional track record for diversity and inclusion
practices. Gordon Nixon, RBC CEO, acknowledges that his diverse workforce makes
his company better because it can effectively serve its diverse clients and
recruit the best talent.

Women represent 67 per cent of RBC's workforce, 54 per cent of its management
and 37 per cent of its executives. Visible minority women in management
positions account for 28 per cent and 14 per cent of its executive roles. The
Royal Bank is on the right track.

Honourable senators, in conclusion, the results published by Ryerson
University's Diversity Institute confirm what I have always argued: Visible
minorities are under-represented in senior management and executive positions.

Please join me, honourable senators, in helping both women and particularly
visible minority women shatter the glass ceiling, and encourage Canada's leading
corporations to accept and promote diversity and inclusion at all levels.

Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, on Tuesday, March 20, francophones in over 50 countries where French
is spoken will celebrate International Day of La Francophonie.

It is interesting to note that the official celebration of La Francophonie
will be held in Trafalgar Square in London, where a series of concerts featuring
francophone artists will be held. The shows will be part of the festivities
surrounding the Olympic and Paralympic Games taking place in London this summer.
Michaëlle Jean, Canada's former Governor General, will attend the celebration in
her capacity as Grand Témoin de la Francophonie for the London 2012 Olympic
Games.

The Rendez-vous de la Francophonie, our own national celebration of French
language and culture, will take place from March 9 to 25. This year's theme is
``Understanding builds a better future.'' Across Canada, various events
including flag- raising ceremonies, shows, concerts and educational activities
will attract many francophones and francophiles who care about promoting
French-language culture.

In my province of Alberta, 23 communities raised the Franco- Albertan flag on
March 2 to kick off the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie. The flag's design was
selected for its power to bring people together. Edmonton's mayor, Stephen
Mandell, took the opportunity to salute the francophone community's significant
efforts to preserve its history and language and the integrity of
French-Canadian culture across the country. He said that the community is doing
an outstanding job.

(1410)

Honourables senators, Canada's Francophonie represents an invaluable quality
and asset that distinguish us around the world. We must always focus on
strengthening and enhancing relationships between our francophone communities in
order to promote French in the business world, across the digital universe and
in our international exchanges.

According to the Secretary General of La Francophonie, Abdou Diouf,
francophones in Canada, who are surrounded by a nearly entirely anglophone
majority, provide the heartbeat of the global Francophonie. The unique situation
of Canada's francophones and their unwavering determination to defend the French
language are extremely motivational to francophones around the globe.

I hope our elected officials never stop recognizing their responsibilities
towards francophone communities to assert and demonstrate their leadership,
while developing and implementing policies that show respect for our language
rights.

I wish to pay tribute to everyone who works on promoting and enhancing La
Francophonie, while keeping the French language alive and flourishing. We must
demonstrate our attachment to La Francophonie by celebrating its wealth and
diversity.

Hon. Yonah Martin: Honourable senators, in light of last week's
International Women's Day, I rise today to celebrate the achievement of one of
our own formidable women, Senator Salma Ataullahjan. On March 8, International
Women's Day, Senator Ataullahjan received a Wonder Women of the Year Award on
behalf of the National Hero Foundation, a non-profit organization ordained by
the government of Pakistan.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Martin: With more than 300 nominations in 19 countries,
Senator Salma Ataullahjan was named as one of Pakistan's top 23 inspirational
women, receiving her award under the title of Women's Icon. Past recipients of
this award include the late Benazir Bhutto.

[Translation]

Senator Ataullahjan has been recognized as a remarkable Pakistani living
overseas, given her distinction as the first Canadian senator of Pakistani
descent and for her dedicated service to the Pakistani-Canadian community. She
compassionately defends Pakistan and does everything she can to strengthen
Canada's relations with Pakistan, particularly during difficult times.

[English]

Senator Ataullahjan has met with internally displaced persons in the Swat
Valley, has participated in flood relief efforts here in Canada, and has
personally visited flood-damaged regions in Pakistan. A natural consensus
builder, she has also been an active participant in several community-based
associations in the GTA, including as a long-time member of the Canadian chapter
of The Citizens Foundation, an international organization that has built and
funded over 730 schools for Pakistan's poorest children.

I also know that as a working mother of two beautiful daughters and as a
wife, a sister, a friend to many and as a representative of the
Pakistani-Canadian community, she also does work nationally and internationally.
She is most deserving of this award.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I am also happy to tell you that Senator Ataullahjan was
one of three Pakistani-Canadian women honoured as the most distinguished women
from Pakistan. Oscar winner Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy and medical pioneer Dr.
Shahnaz Dar were also honoured at the Wonder Women of the Year Awards last week.

[English]

Honourable senators, I am sure we can all agree that it is wonderful to see
such accomplished Canadian women recognized on the world stage. I hope
honourable senators will join me in congratulating Senator Ataullahjan and the
award winners on this prestigious honour.

Hon. Don Meredith: Honourable senators, on Friday, March 9, 2012,
Canada and the world lost a great hero with the unfortunate passing of Dr.
Herbert H. Carnegie.

As honourable senators may remember, last November I made a statement in this
place in celebration of Dr. Carnegie's 92nd birthday, making mention of his many
contributions to Canadian society. I noted that Dr. Carnegie made history in
1948 as the first Black person to be offered an NHL minor-league contract to
play for the New York Rangers. Unfortunately, he was forced to decline due to
family and financial obligations. Nevertheless, he paved the way for future
Black hockey players, including his grandson, Rane Carnegie, who played in the
Ontario Hockey League, the American Hockey League, and overseas in France.

Off the ice, Dr. Carnegie would have a greater reach, inspiring the next
generation by founding the Future Aces Hockey School, one of the first hockey
schools in Canada, and the Herbert H. Carnegie Future Aces Foundation. He penned
the popular Future Aces Creed designed to help youth develop self-knowledge and
self-confidence. This creed has been embraced by many schools in Ontario and
beyond.

Dr. Carnegie was named to the Order of Ontario in 1996 and to the Order of
Canada in 2003. He received an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from York
University for his work as a community leader.

In the fall of 2008, I attended the opening of the school named in his honour
— Herbert H. Carnegie Public School — in Maple, Ontario, where I had the
opportunity to personally spend time with this iconic figure.

He was a kind and warm Canadian, loved by the world over. As the first
Jamaican to be appointed to this place, I am especially proud of Dr. Carnegie as
a man of Jamaican heritage. He was able to turn his adversities into
opportunities and he is an inspiration for young people experiencing similar
challenges today.

On May 5 last year, I hosted a group of grade 8 students from Herbert H.
Carnegie Public School in the Senate as they visited Parliament Hill. My wife,
Michelle, a teacher at the school, knows he will be missed by both students and
teachers, as the school is in mourning.

I would like to express my heartfelt condolences to the family of this
Canadian legend, including his children Goldie, Bernice, Rochelle and Dale; his
nine grandchildren; and seven great- grandchildren. May they find comfort
knowing that Dr. Carnegie's dream will continue to be fulfilled for years to
come as our youth strive to be the best they can be through the Future Aces
Foundation and creed.

Please join me, honourable senators, in remembering a great Canadian who has
left his fingerprint on the next generation of our youth and athletes of colour.
May his legacy of positive attitude, confidence, education and service continue
to shape the next generation of young leaders across this great country.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before calling for Tabling
of Documents, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of
Ms. Madge Munday, the recipient of the National Association of Career Colleges
Graduate of the Year Award. She is accompanied by the chair of the association,
Dr. Michael McAllister, and other members of the board of the association.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Gerry St. Germain, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples, presented the following report:

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has the honour to
present its

FOURTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-6, An Act respecting the
election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First
Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, has, in
obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, February 2, 2012, examined
the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to
this report.

Respectfully submitted,

GERRY ST. GERMAIN,
Chair

(For text of observations, see today's Journals of the Senate,
Appendix, p. 960.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be
read the third time?

(On motion of Senator St. Germain, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for
third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the final report on Air Canada's obligations under the
Official Languages Act, entitled: Air Canada's Obligations under the Official
Languages Act: Towards Substantive Equality.

(On motion of Senator Chaput, report placed on the Orders of the Day for
consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. John D. Wallace: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the
next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, on Thursday March 15, 2012 and on Thursday March 29, 2012, for the
purposes of its consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal
Code and the Firearms Act, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs have the power to sit even though the Senate may then
be sitting, with the application of rule 95(4) being suspended in relation
thereto.

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the
next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to
examine and report on issues pertaining to the human rights of First Nations
band members who reside off-reserve, with an emphasis on the current federal
policy framework. In particular, the committee will examine:

(a) Rights relating to residency;

(b) Access to rights;

(c) Participation in community-based decision-making
processes;

(d) Portability of rights;

(e) Existing Remedies; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than February 28,
2013 and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its
findings until 30 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

In her reply to Senator Fraser's question last week, the leader stated that
the government is making every effort to increase the number of women in the
judiciary. However, statistics on judicial appointments indicate that the
percentage of women appointed to the federal judiciary by the Minister of
Justice has decreased significantly since 2006.

In 2005, 40 per cent of judges were women. However, since 2006, only 30 per
cent of the justices appointed have been women and the trend seems to be heading
downward.

In 2010 and 2011, for example, just 25 per cent of the justices appointed
were women. Could the minister describe the efforts that are being made to
increase the number of women in the judicial system and why there has been a
decrease, as shown by the statistics, even though the number of women in the
legal profession continues to increase?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
as I have said, we are extremely proud of the judicial appointments we have
made, and this includes the appointment of Chief Justice Nicole Duval Hesler,
the first woman in Canada's history ever to be appointed as Chief Justice to the
Quebec Court of Appeal. The appointment of qualified women to Canada's judiciary
is a priority for our government, and we are making progress.

We recently appointed Justice Karakatsanis to the Supreme Court, which means
that now four of the nine judges of the Supreme Court are women. Five of the
eleven judges at the Federal Court of Appeal are also women and our government
is extremely proud of the fact that we appointed four of those women.

[Translation]

Senator Tardif: Indeed, honourable senators, those are good
appointments. However, facts are facts and the statistics show a decline.

The leader also said last week that the government is ensuring that women are
well represented in the appointment process. However, as Senator Losier-Cool
pointed out in a question in December, women are also under-represented on the
committees charged to advise the Minister of Justice on federal judicial
appointments. In all, women hold just 28 of the 133 positions on those
committees. The government's guidelines require the federal Minister of Justice
to consider representation of the public in the composition of the advisory
committees.

How does the government plan to adjust the composition of these committees in
order to ensure that they better reflect the population, including women?

[English]

Senator LeBreton: As the honourable senator knows, there are 17
judicial advisory committees that work on a volunteer basis to identify and
recommend qualified candidates for Canada's judiciary. The honourable senator is
mistaken if she believes that these advisory committees are set up by the
federal Department of Justice.

I have some experience and knowledge in this area. These judicial advisory
committees are set up across the country. They are made up primarily of the
justices of the various provinces and territories, plus the Chief Justice of the
court and others. These advisory committees, of course, are responsible for
making recommendations to the Department of Justice for judicial appointments,
and we will continue to seek out, select and recommend for appointment women and
men of undisputable merit and legal excellence, with input from a broad range of
stakeholders.

The judicial appointments process is one that has stood the test of time. We
started this process back under the Mulroney government. It was carried on by
the Chrétien and Martin governments. It has produced high-quality people to
serve in the judiciary, and we are constantly seeking out appointments of highly
qualified women. I just put on the record the names of some of the women we have
appointed recently.

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, did I actually hear the
leader compliment the Liberals? Fantastic. What a way to start my question.

There is a case that is public now in which a male RCMP sergeant and a female
constable had sex in an RCMP car on RCMP time. The male sergeant was docked ten
days' pay and the female constable was fired.

(1430)

What is it about the culture of the RCMP that a man would be given a slap on
the wrist for that and the woman would be fired?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Senator Mitchell
started off okay.

I would I not comment on a situation that I have very little knowledge of. I
will simply take the senator's question as notice.

Senator Mitchell: Let me ask another question for the leader to
consider on notice.

They both lied about the affair, and then they both admitted it. The female
constable, in her tribunal, was actually convicted of lying. The sergeant's
lying could not be considered because the terms of reference for his tribunal
were designed in such a way that the lying was excluded. What does it say about
the culture of the RCMP that the male would not be considered for lying and
therefore would escape even being demoted, that was a point made by the
tribunal, whereas the female's lying would be considered in the fact that she
was fired from her job?

Senator LeBreton: I thank the honourable senator for the question. He
raises a valid and excellent question, and I am happy to take it as notice.

Senator Mitchell: The third consideration here was the tribunal
actually ruled to fire her and at the same time insisted somehow, I do not know
how, that she would have to undertake psychological care. How is it that there
would be this kind of arrogance in the RCMP culture where someone could be fired
and then the RCMP could consider that they could still order her around?

Senator LeBreton: These are very good and valid questions, and as a
woman I am looking forward to what kind of an answer they give us. I thank the
honourable senator very much.

Senator Mitchell: Finally, while the leader is considering this, could
she consider the litany of this kind of issue that is now emerging and ask the
question of herself and of her colleagues how many of these kinds of cases have
to emerge, how much of this has to be going on, before this government will step
in and do something about changing the culture of the RCMP so that women, among
other people, can feel safe in this iconic institution reflecting iconic
Canadian values?

Senator LeBreton: I hope the honourable senator was not suggesting
that this is the kind of activity we participate in over on this side. In any
event, I will take the question as notice, honourable senators.

Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, for over 30 years the
backbone of the management of the Atlantic fisheries has been based on fleet
separation and owner-operator policies. These policies have ensured that the
inshore and midshore fishers along our Atlantic shores have a fair opportunity
to operate independent fishing businesses free from the outside influence of
large processors and corporations.

These policies have been critical components behind an industry that
comprises Atlantic Canada's single largest private sector employer, providing
over 20,000 jobs in one of the regions of this country with high unemployment.

Now the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is apparently moving towards
eliminating these policies and allowing large corporate entities to move in and
take control of this fishery that is so critical to the economic well-being of
our Atlantic coast. Can the minister assure us that the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans will not abandon the 20,000 workers in this industry by eliminating
these policies that have been so important for the whole region of the country?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the
honourable senator for the question. All I can say at the moment, and some of
these are from very speculative news stories, I believe, is that the Minister of
Fisheries is at the moment listening to fishermen and not advocating for any
particular position. Of course, our government, as all governments naturally
would be, is fully committed to the economic vitality of fishermen and their
communities.

Senator Hubley: Supplementary, please. Surely the federal government
can acknowledge that a change of this magnitude will impact the lives of
thousands of Atlantic Canadians along our East Coast. Will the government commit
to an extensive and meaningful consultation process that includes taking
hearings directly to the affected communities to give those affected by this
decision the ability to contribute to this policy decision?

Senator LeBreton: I think I answered that question. The Minister of
Fisheries is currently listening to fishermen and the various communities where
this is a major industry. He is not advocating for any particular position. He
is in listening mode at the moment, and I can only state what I stated before:
We are fully committed to the economic vitality of fishermen and the communities
in which they live.

Senator Hubley: Further supplementary, please. On the consultation
process, I am wondering if the leader would confirm for me when she takes this
back to the minister if in fact he is visiting the areas in the Atlantic region
that are most affected by this policy, and if she could also share with us the
communities and the fishing organizations that he speaks to.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I will be certainly happy to
make that request of the minister.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Minister, you say the Minister of Fisheries is
listening. We went through this not too long ago. Minister Ritz, the Minister of
Agriculture, said he was listening to farmers. He was going to follow the law
and consult with farmers before making any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.
During that debate, both here in this chamber and in the Agriculture and
Forestry Committee, I made the point that this was just the tip of the iceberg.
The Wheat Board was first, and I predicted supply management would be next. I
guess I was a little off. I think supply management is still on the block,
according to articles in the paper, but now we will talk about the fisheries
industry. We will decimate areas of Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.

To quote one of my colleagues in the other place, this government is treating
our independent Atlantic Canadian and Quebec owner-operator fleets with nothing
but contempt and disrespect by even considering changes that will wipe out
independent fishers and make wealthy companies even wealthier on the backs of
Atlantic Canadians and coastal Quebec communities.

This is similar to what we predict will happen in Western Canada with the
consolidation of those who own the grain and those who control the sale and
marketing of grain, which we think will happen after the August 1 date when the
Wheat Board officially changes to its new entity.

Senator LeBreton says Minister Ritz is listening, but who is he listening to?

Senator LeBreton: First, with regard to the Wheat Board, we have been
around the block on this before. Through a number of election campaigns, the
government's commitment was very clear to Western Canadian grain producers to
give them the same marketing freedom that producers in other parts of the
country have, and farmers in Western Canada do still have the option of selling
their wheat through the Wheat Board.

With regard to the Minister of Fisheries, I can only tell you what I know to
be the case, honourable senators, and that is that he is listening very intently
to the people in the fishing industry and has not taken a position or advocated
for any particular position. Unlike the Wheat Board where we did advocate very
clearly and delivered on our promise to Western farmers, in this case the
minister is listening very carefully. He is discussing the various options with
the people in the fishing industry, and I cannot offer Senator Mercer anything
more than I offered to Senator Hubley, that I will be happy to, as I indicated
to her, get further information from the minister as to the extent of his
consultations.

Senator Mercer: Minister Ritz a month before the election was called
indicated that he was going to follow the law as it was at that time and go
through a consultation process with farmers. We know what the policy of the
government had been through the elections, but he said this to farmers, and that
was not worth much. The Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review then states that
fishers are to be given a direct say in policy decision-making. The Department
of Fisheries and Oceans gave independent fleet operators little or no notice of
consultation and very short times to respond.

(1440)

Is this another example of rushing this thing through so that no one has an
opportunity to understand the ramifications? This is bad public policy. If the
government proceeds down this road, it will close down hundreds of fishing
villages all across Atlantic Canada and Eastern Quebec. It will be dealing with
the social problems that will fall out from that.

The Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review says that fishers are to be consulted.
Is there a formal plan for that consultation?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the honourable senator used the
word ``if.'' ``If'' is a small word that can be used and abused in many ways. I
can only state what I said to Senator Hubley and that is that the Minister of
Fisheries, Mr. Ashfield, is listening at the moment to fishermen and is not
advocating any particular position. We are firmly committed as a government to
the vitality of the various communities in Atlantic Canada that depend on the
fishery for their livelihood.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of
the Government in the Senate. I had the privilege yesterday of speaking at
Dalhousie University to a class who are studying health promotion specifically
related to mental health and mental illness. They asked me to speak about the
Kirby report, which was published six years ago this May. I know the leader was
a part of that committee. It is always interesting to know that people are still
studying the Kirby report on mental health and mental illness, which was called
Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and
Addiction Services in Canada, and that students at university are now
studying it.

The students were asking me questions. There was one question that the leader
may not be able to answer today, but I would appreciate it if she would take it
as notice. We got into a discussion about the fact that we tend to think that
only the provinces and territories deliver health care, but we do know that the
federal government is the fifth-largest provider of health care in Canada
because it deals specifically with the RCMP, the military, First Nations,
Aboriginals and inmates in the prison system.

The question asked of me by a student was: How much money is spent by the
Canadian government on health care for those particular groups that the federal
government is specifically responsible for? Out of that amount of money that is
spent on health care for those groups, how much is spent dealing with mental
health issues? What percentage of the total amount deals specifically with
mental health issues?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the
honourable senator for the question. In the Department of National Defence,
there has been a large increase in programs with regard to mental health. I will
be happy to take the question as notice.

The honourable senator will recall, because we were both on the committee,
the whole issue of mental health and mental illness was described as the last
frontier; that is, the study of illnesses of the brain. I know our former
colleague the Honourable Michael Kirby is doing an outstanding job with the
Mental Health Commission.

The honourable senator is quite right. She asked for a lot of details with
regard to the amount of money that is expended on mental illness and I will be
very happy to take the question as notice and provide a written response.

Senator Cordy: I would also like the total amount of money and the
percentage of the whole pot that is specifically spent on mental health and
mental illness, if the leader could do that as well.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been
received from the House of Commons returning Bill C-10, An Act to enact the
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the
Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, and acquainting the Senate that they have
agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this bill without further
amendment.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill
S-205, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (carbon offset tax credit).

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, please allow me to take part in the debate and join the opponents of
Bill S-205.

The purpose of this bill is to establish a new, costly, ineffective tax
credit for investments in approved offset projects. These non- refundable
credits could be up to 15 per cent of one person's total eligible investments
for one year.

[English]

While I oppose this costly proposal, I am pleased to say that protecting the
health and environment of Canadians has been and continues to be a key priority
for our government.

[Translation]

With regard to fiscal policy, the government has presented many measures to
support the environment, in particular, the public transit tax credit and the
expansion of eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean
energy generation equipment.

Last year in Budget 2011, the government announced that equipment that
generates electricity using waste heat would be eligible for the accelerated
capital cost allowance.

Moreover, the government renewed its funding for the Clean Air Agenda to
support regulatory activities to address climate change, the cornerstone of
Canada's policy in this regard. This program will make it possible to achieve
real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, while maintaining Canada's economic
advantage and its ability to create jobs for Canadians.

[English]

Building on work to date, the government has renewed the Next Phase of
Canada's Economic Action Plan, funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
improve air quality and help Canadians and businesses adapt to a changing
climate.

[Translation]

For example, the plan allocates $252 million to supporting regulatory
activities that address climate change and air quality, and $86 million to
supporting clean energy regulatory actions, focusing on energy efficiency.

In addition, the next phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan allocates $48
million over two years to develop transportation sector regulations and
next-generation clean transportation initiatives, $58 million for projects to
improve Canadians' understanding of climate change impacts, and $25 million over
two years to advance Canada's engagement in international negotiations and
support the Canada-United States Clean Energy Dialogue.

[English]

Honourable senators, I trust you will agree that these actions demonstrate
the government's commitment to protect the environment and pave the way to a
cleaner energy economy.

[Translation]

Unfortunately, the proposal that we are debating today has many shortcomings,
including the cost involved. One of the main problems with Bill S-205 is that it
fails to define what constitutes an ``approved offset project'' and remains
vague as to the possibility and ease of developing such a definition.

(1450)

In order for the government to administer the proposed tax credit, clear
criteria would have to be established to determine whether a given offset
project is eligible for the credit. What type of project would be eligible, and
for each type of project, what would be the specific eligibility criteria? Would
eligibility be limited to projects carried out in Canada? How and by whom would
projects be evaluated?

[English]

The bill's solution to address this lack of clarity is to let the Minister of
National Revenue figure it out, without offering any guidelines that would allow
the minister to determine which projects will be eligible.

[Translation]

There are no nationally recognized standards to define offset projects or
providers on whom the minister can call to administer the provisions of the
bill. Without standardized rules for the allocation of carbon offset tax
credits, it would be impossible to validate credits correctly. As a result, the
quality of the credits could vary substantially from one provider to the next,
not to mention that implementing the provisions of Bill S-205 would be an
enormous undertaking requiring a new field of expertise within the Canada
Revenue Agency. There is simply no national consensus on the eligibility
criteria for offset projects. It is not reasonable to expect the Department of
National Revenue to give a taxpayer a carbon offset tax credit if the department
is not even in a position to identify eligible investments.

Honourable senators, implementing Bill S-205 would be totally unrealistic.
Asking the Minister of National Revenue to administer this tax credit without
key definitions or a regulatory framework is putting the cart before the horse.

[English]

In addition, there is no clear evaluation mechanism and no clear standards in
place to ensure that the public subsidies for the carbon offset investment would
result in cost-effective reductions in carbon emissions. In other words, the
purpose of the bill will not meet its goals, because it does not ensure a
reasonable correlation between the amounts spent and the environmental benefits
achieved.

[Translation]

It would likely be very difficult to assess the implementation costs and the
direct costs. Our examination of the bill revealed that the costs would be
open-ended, because there are no limits in the bill on the amount of credits
that could be claimed by an individual investor. At the very least, the Canada
Revenue Agency would be burdened with significant administrative costs
associated with the approval and monitoring of offset projects.

Honourable senators, let us not forget that the personal income tax system
already provides incentives to individuals who wish to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. When a taxpayer makes a donation to an organization dedicated to
protecting the environment, he or she can ask for a generous tax credit if it is
a registered charity. The Government of Canada offers a non- refundable tax
credit worth 15 per cent for every dollar donated to a maximum of $200, and 29
per cent for every dollar over that amount. If we take into account the tax
breaks also given by the provinces, Canadians recoup about 46 cents for every
dollar donated up to $200. Given the generosity of the tax credit for charitable
donations, it is difficult to believe that individual taxpayers, if given a
choice, would opt for the tax credit for the purchase of carbon offsets.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the bill before us today presents
a costly and unrealistic plan. I respectfully urge all honourable senators to
vote against this bill.

[English]

Hon. Nancy Greene Raine: Honourable senators, I rise to address Bill
S-205, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act. If passed, this amendment would give
tax credits to Canadians who invest in so-called carbon offsets. While I have no
objection to citizens spending their own money in any way they choose, I do not
support the government's giving tax credits for carbon offsets. I say this for
several reasons. First and foremost, I consider it an unnecessary and
undesirable expense at a time when we should be looking for ways to reduce the
tax burden on Canadians. While it is true that the amendment would benefit those
who invest in carbon offsets, it would be an expense that would have to be
covered by all other taxpayers. I say it is unnecessary because, contrary to the
assertions of the honourable senator sponsoring the bill, it addresses an issue
that is more and more being questioned by new scientific evidence. We simply do
not know that our actions have a significant impact on the global climate, let
alone that ``the consequences of not acting can be catastrophic,'' to quote
Senator Mitchell.

I do not pretend to be a climate expert, but I have spent a lot of time over
the past decade reading about this topic and listening to those scientists who
are true experts. This, I believe, puts me in a good position to apply a common
sense approach to the issue.

Before I outline what I think would be a logical, ``no regrets'' approach to
climate change, I need to clear up some misconceptions about so-called carbon
emissions, a term erroneously used by the honourable senator sponsoring this
bill in his speech in this chamber on November 23. In Canada and in the United
States and, indeed, in many industrialized countries, about 85 per cent of the
greenhouse gas we release, other than water vapour, is carbon dioxide. This is
not carbon, but a compound of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, yielding a
molecule that has the chemical formula CO2. This is not merely an
academic point. Ignoring the oxygen atoms and calling CO2 emissions
carbon emissions is as appropriate as ignoring oxygen in water vapour or H2O
and calling it hydrogen. Most Canadians would regard it ridiculous to have their
water bill labelled a hydrogen bill.

The ``CO2 is carbon'' mistake is a common misconception, and it
unjustifiably encourages people to view this benign gas as dirty, which indeed
it is not.

Unlike carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and other
pollutants, carbon dioxide is not toxic. In fact, it is an essential ingredient
in plant photosynthesis, without which there would be no life on earth. For the
past century, greenhouse operators have been adding CO2 to the air
inside greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

This is because plants are somewhat undernourished in CO2 at
today's atmospheric levels. We are closer to low CO2 levels, at which
plants die, than we are to any dangerous upper limit. Throughout most of earth's
history, CO2 levels have been significantly higher than they are now,
and life flourished.

Unlike a decade ago, when few scientists dared express doubt that humanity's
CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming, it seems now that
not a week goes by without some leading expert condemning the hypothesis. On
January 27, The Wall Street Journal published an open letter from 16
leading scientists in which they told politicians that they must, and I quote:

. . . understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists
demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.
In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and
engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Signatories to the letter included such eminent scientists as Claude Allegre,
former director of the Institute for the Study of Earth at the University of
Paris, and Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, in
Geneva.

Open letters and petitions like this have been circulating for years, several
of which were sent to the three most recent Canadian prime ministers. The best
known of all of these documents is the Global Warming Petition Project, which
now claims over 31,000 U.S. scientists and technically qualified professionals.
They assert, in the petition:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate.

(1500)

Honourable senators, if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not
causing climate change, what is causing it? In December, the Standing Senate
Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard from leading
climate experts whose research indicates that the primary driver of climate
change is the sun. They maintain that the greenhouse gas reduction
recommendations of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
the IPCC, are simply in error and that humanity does not control our planet's
climate.

I cannot judge whether they are right, but I do think that we must carefully
consider well-substantiated alternative theories in a field as immature as
climate change science. After all, if governments are to base policies on real
science and not become bogged down in mere rhetoric and politically correct
dogma, we must hear from experts who follow the scientific method, even, and
perhaps especially, when they come to conclusions that are not currently in
vogue.

The scientific method lays out how we must first observe nature, then create
possible hypotheses to explain the observations, then test those hypotheses and
then change our ideas to fit observed facts, all the while encouraging open,
science- based discussion and questioning. Yet today, unfortunately, many
environmentalists become indignant if one dares question politically correct
ideas about climate change. Clearly, this is not constructive.

In his working paper just submitted to Dutch authorities, leading scientist
Arthur Rörsch critiqued the UN IPCC, the body whose reports constitute the
foundation for many of the government's climate policies. He shows that their
methods at times strongly deviate from the scientific method. In the December
Senate hearing, we heard about many of the other problems of the IPCC and how
they simply can no longer be trusted as an unbiased source of scientific
information.

Consequently, I recommend to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources that they consider doing a thorough study into
the current state of climate change science, carefully considering all reputable
points of view on the issue. In addition, the committee should consider whether
the reports of the IPCC should be relied upon by the Government of Canada for
policy formulation. To give honourable senators a quick overview of the many
problems with the IPCC, I suggest that you read the well-documented review by
Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise. Her book is entitled The
Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert.
After reading the book, you may no longer consider her book title to be mere
humour.

It has often been suggested that to ``fight climate change'' Canada can
easily make a conversion from conventional energy sources to low-carbon-dioxide
emitting wind, solar and other power sources. In his speech supporting Bill
S-205, the honourable senator promoted these energy sources as job and wealth
creators for Canada. However, honourable senators, the experience in Europe
tells a very different story.

For example, researchers at the Instituto Bruno Leoni in Italy found that for
every so-called ``green job'' created by subsidies, nearly five times as many
ordinary jobs could have been created in the general economy at the same cost.
The Italian researchers add:

What's often ignored is that the creation of green jobs through subsidies
or regulation inherently leads to the destruction of job opportunities in
other industries. That's because any resource forcibly taken out of one
sector and politically allocated in favour of renewable energy cannot be
invested elsewhere.

A November 2009 German economic paper from the Ruhr University Bochum and
RWI, a publicly funded research institute, concluded:

It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy
promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated.

University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick sums it up best by
saying:

If spending money on greenhouse gas reduction is profitable and makes
people better off then there is no need for government to force it to
happen.

I wish to make it clear that I believe that the Government of Canada must
indeed continue to protect our natural environment, but we must concentrate our
energy and financial resources on tackling environmental problems we know to be
real, such as cleaning up toxic waste dumps and reducing agricultural and urban
runoff that pollutes lakes and rivers. The climate always changes and there may
well be nothing we can do to stop it.

In summary, I believe that the real focus of Canada's climate policy, the
no-regrets approach that yields benefits no matter what causes climate change,
must be to help vulnerable people and communities prepare for and adapt to
inevitable climate change. We should also continue to support scientific
research in the field so that some day we may be able to forecast climate to
help us get ready for whatever nature throws at us next.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Senator Raine gave us some quotes. I would therefore
like to cite two excerpts from an article published in the Tocqueville Review
in 2011.

Here is the first citation:

Even if Canada took dramatic action and managed to reduce its GHG
emissions by half, such efforts, by themselves, would not have a noticeable
impact on the climate disturbances that threaten the country, because Canada
accounts for only 1.88% of global emissions.

The second citation speaks about Albertans and the oil sands:

But the oil sands are responsible for only 0.1% of global GHG emissions
and therefore only 0.1% of the melting of Western Canada's glaciers.

Who is the author of this quote?

[English]

Senator Raine: I am sorry; I do not know who the author of that quote
is. Perhaps the honourable senator could tell us.

Senator Carignan: Stéphane Dion.

Senator Raine: Honourable senators, I am in receipt of an email sent
to the Honourable Senator Mitchell on January 10 in 2012. I decided that it
would not be good use of our time here in the Senate to read some of the quotes,
but it is literally page after page of quotes by eminent scientists talking
about the uncertainty of the climate science. I will circulate this to all
honourable senators so they can read it for themselves. I would encourage
everyone to remember that it is very difficult for public policy to get out in
front of public opinion. We should be asking ourselves this question: How did
the opinion that man is causing dangerous climate warming get where it is today?

Senator Mercer: Through science.

Senator Cowan: Is Senator Raine making a second speech? I thought she
had concluded her speech and Senator Carignan asked her a question and now she
is up speaking again.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: I do appreciate receiving a complete answer to the
question posed by the Honourable Senator Raine.

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Eaton calling
the attention of the Senate to the interference of foreign foundations in
Canada's domestic affairs and their abuse of Canada's existing Revenue
Canada Charitable status.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise
today to speak to Senator Eaton's inquiry on the involvement of foreign
foundations in Canada's domestic affairs. I am further happy to be part of what
Senator Mitchell calls the Finley-Eaton tag team. As was shown on May 2, 2011,
indeed, it is a tag team championship.

Senators on both sides of this chamber would agree that Canadians have a duty
to protect their land and people and to keep our country strong, sovereign and
free. However, right now Canada's sovereignty is being challenged in a veiled
threat through foreign charities. More than 4,300 foreign-funded
environmentalists have signed up to appear before a panel vetting the proposed
Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast, despite the fact that
a Nanos survey conducted at the end of January found that nearly 75 per cent of
respondents believe that Canada should diversify its energy export markets
beyond the United States.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently stated:

. . . just because certain people in the United States would like to see
Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America, I
don't think that's part of what our review process is all about. Our process
is there to determine what the needs and desires of Canadians are.

Mr. Harper also said:

And I think ultimately because it's Canadian jobs that are at stake, that
Canadians have to be the ones who make the decisions.

It is about balance between the environment and the economy. It seems that
Senator Mitchell shares the view that Canada should be one big tourist park. If
Senator Mitchell had his way, he would impose a carbon tax on Canadians — a tax
on absolutely everything. Canadians would be paying substantially more for gas
for their cars, electricity for their homes and everything else they buy.

National Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently stated in an open letter:

Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that
would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is
to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in
lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No
more hydro-electric dams.

These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their
radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find,
stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good
projects. . . . They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the
largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to
develop our natural resources.

A number of senators have previously cited contributions through charitable
organizations, but they bear repeating.

Vivian Krause showed evidence in the Financial Post that since 2000
U.S. foundations have granted at least $300 million to various environmental
organizations and campaigns in Canada. For instance, the San Francisco-based
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has granted $92 million. Gordon Moore is one
of the founders of Intel Corporation. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation have granted a combined total of $90
million, mostly to environmental groups in British Columbia. The Pew Charitable
Trusts. based in Philadelphia and created by the founder of Sun Oil, has granted
at least $82 million over the past decade; and at least $40 million has been
granted by other U.S. foundations.

Of the $300 million, at least $150 million was specifically for the Great
Bear Rainforest initiative, the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area
and the Canadian Boreal Initiative. The Great Bear Rainforest is a 21
million-hectare zone that extends from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to
the southern tip of Alaska. Environmentalists now claim that oil tanker traffic
must not be allowed in the Great Bear Rainforest in order to protect the Kermode
bear, also called the spirit bear. North coast B.C. First Nations groups have
received at least $50 million from U.S. foundations — $27 million from Moore,
$19 million from Hewlett and Packard, and several million more from other U.S.
foundations. The Pew Trusts also granted $57 million to the Boreal Forest
Initiative which seeks to place half of Canada's Boreal forest, nearly two
thirds of the area of Canada, into protected status.

The main aim of the Great Bear Rainforest initiative and the Canadian Boreal
Initiative is to destroy Canada's oil industry. The industry employs upwards of
800,000 Canadians, contributes $65 billion to Canada's GDP, as well as $9
billion in corporate and personal taxes to federal, provincial and municipal
governments. U.S. foundations have granted at least $30 million specifically for
campaigns to impede this Canadian industry and Canada's economy.

Honourable senators, when we speak of Canada's boreal forest, I would like to
note that over the past 40 years, only 0.02 per cent of Canada's boreal forests
has been disturbed by the oil sands mining operations and that 94 per cent of
the Lower Athabasca region's living resources have been left intact. As well, in
Alberta alone, 90,000 square kilometres, or approximately 24 per cent of the
Boreal forest, is protected from development.

What strategic plan does Hewlett-funded Tides Canada have? Does it involve
funding a large number of politically motivated parties or individuals under the
guise of charities? Tides U.S.A. and sister organization Tides Canada have paid
a total of $10.2 million to 44 organizations that campaign against Canadian oil.

Canadians need to march with their phones and computers to tell Carol
Larson of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Melissa Bradley of the
Tides Foundation and Peter Robinson of the David Suzuki Foundation that they
will not stand for this.

Canadians are rightfully concerned that an oil spill similar to the Exxon
Valdez oil disaster could devastate the B.C. coast for years to come. They
are every bit as Canadian as you or I, but their billionaire funders are not.
U.S. billionaires and their billion- dollar charitable foundations are fighting
the oil companies on Canadian soil.

Canada is indeed a sovereign nation, which is why foreign entities should
simply not be allowed to meddle in the Canadian regulatory process under the
guise of charities.

(1520)

As Ethical Oil spokesperson Kathryn Marshall stated:

Letting foreign money buy its way into our regulatory processes is wrong.
It opens doors to foreign interests that have no concern for our jobs and
our economy. When a foreign-funded, anti-pipeline activist admits, as Eric
Swanson of the Dogwood Initiative did on CTV, that ``if I got duffel bags of
money delivered from Martians from outer space, I would still take that
money,'' Canadians should take him at his word.

Let me ask you this, honourable senators: If environmentalists are willing to
accept money from Martians, where would they draw the line on where they receive
money from? Would they take money from al Qaeda, the Hamas or the Taliban? Who
is really making the decisions in Canada if we allow foreign money to lobby
against what should be Canadian-made decisions?

Prime Minister Harper and our Conservative government have been a strong
voice for Canadian sovereignty. Through rebuilding our Canadian Forces and
adopting a new, values-based foreign policy, our government is ensuring Canada's
autonomy while advancing our national interests on the world stage.

Our government is making sure that values that Canadians hold dear — freedom,
democracy, human rights and the rule of law — are being promoted on the world
stage. Canada is now asserting its sovereignty in the Arctic, pursuing new
international free trade agreements and strengthening our contributions to
global security, most notably through the UN-NATO missions in Afghanistan and
Libya.

By promoting free trade globally, Canada is providing a foundation for
expanded exports and, ultimately, strengthening our national economy. Currently,
one in five jobs in Canada are linked to international trade and almost 60 per
cent of Canada's GDP is connected to trade. Since our government came to office
in 2006, Canada has completed new free trade agreements with nine countries.

As Minister of International Trade Ed Fast recently stated:

The global economic recovery remains fragile, and many threats remain.
Jobs and economic growth to benefit Canadians are our government's key
focus. That is why we are committed to aggressively pursuing bilateral and
regional trade talks and making more effective use of Canada's diplomatic
assets.

Canada is not just a great trading nation; we are an emerging energy
superpower. It has abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy, and
you know, we want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy,
it's that simple. Currently, 99 per cent of Canada's energy exports go to
one country — the United States. And it is increasingly clear that Canada's
commercial interests are best served through diversification of our energy
markets. To this end, our government is committed to ensuring that Canada
has the infrastructure necessary to move our energy resources to those
diversified markets. Yes, we will continue to develop these resources in an
environmentally responsible manner, but so too will we uphold our
responsibility to put the interests of Canadians ahead of foreign money and
influence that seek to obstruct development in Canada in favour of energy
imported from other, less stable parts of the world.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Plett: A respected climate scientist and modeller from the
University of Victoria, Andrew Weaver, recently calculated that emissions from
the Alberta oil sands do not make a big difference to global warming. Weaver's
research shows even if all the possible products that could ever come from the
oil sands were used, the global mean temperature would rise only about 0.36
degrees Celsius. Weaver's study also showed that if the proven oil sands
reserves were used between 2012 and 2062, it would raise the global temperature
by just 0.03 degrees Celsius.

An Hon. Senator: How much?

Senator Plett: By 0.03 degrees Celsius.

This is a stark contrast from oil sands opponents like Senator Grant
Mitchell, who has suggested that the carbon emissions from the oil sands will
make the Earth uninhabitable. Unfortunately, the oil sands have been labelled by
environmentalists as the largest threat to the world's climate. However,
research now shows that other energy sources, such as coal, have been shown to
have a much bigger environmental impact. Weaver's study claims that if the
global coal supply was burned, the global temperature could rise up to 15
degrees Celsius.

Honourable senators, may I have five minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is five minutes
granted, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Please proceed.

Senator Plett: Total greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands in
2009 were 45 megatonnes. This is approximately the equivalent of 3.5 per cent of
2009 emissions from the U.S. coal- fired power generation section.

Nuclear energy is known to be one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitters in
power generation. In spite of this, the first new nuclear plant built in the
United States in more than 30 years was recently approved by U.S. regulators.

It is not my intention, honourable senators, to pit one country against
another with our use of our energy resources. However, countries and lobbyists
should look in their own backyards first before interfering in policies and
regulations of other countries, especially when lobbying against them is masked
under the guise of charities.

I would like to note Senator Mitchell's offensive claim from last Tuesday's
debate:

. . . this government that says, ``We do not even want to talk about the
environmental side of things. We do not even want to demonstrate that we are
open to public discussion and policy debate about the environmental side of
things.''

In answer to Senator Mitchell, in fact the federal Conservative government
and the Alberta provincial Conservative government have invested approximately
$3 billion to make Canada a leader in carbon capture.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Plett: Also, in 2007, the Alberta government implemented
greenhouse gas regulations requiring a mandatory 12 per cent reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions for all large industrial sectors, including existing
oil sands facilities.

Since 2007, these regulations have resulted in greenhouse gas reductions of
23 megatonnes, which is the equivalent of taking 4,800,000 cars off the road.

As Vivian Krause eloquently states:

Canadians can take care of Canada. The Rockefellers and other billionaire
philanthropists should spend their money reducing poverty in the U.S. and
around the world, not on manipulating markets, swaying investment capital
and protecting trade interests.

Honourable senators, Canadians should be the decision makers of Canadian
policies and regulations. We need to ensure that we protect our sovereignty from
the manipulation of foreign interests and lobbyists who wish to exploit our
regulatory processes for their own agendas, agendas that are clearly against
Canada and Canadian sovereignty. Thank you very much.

(1530)

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Would the honourable senator take a question?

Senator Plett: I guess that is the downside of asking for the extra
time.

Senator Mercer: Honourable senators, as the spokesman for the Flat
Earth Society over there, I wanted to know whether this money the honourable
senator is talking about — by the way, honourable senators should look at the
work some of these foundations do everywhere; they do absolutely fabulous work
in different areas. Senator Plett does not have to particularly care what they
are doing, so he will trash them.

What about the National Rifle Association? When it came to Canada, it spent
untold amounts of money in opposition to the gun control legislation brought in
by the Chrétien government. Does Senator Plett think that was okay?

Senator Plett: Let me simply state, when the honourable senator says
that these organizations do some good work, a motivational speaker that I enjoy
listening to, a man by the name of Zig Ziglar, once said that you can
occasionally find a good biscuit in a garbage can, but that is not the place to
look for it.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Further debate?

[Translation]

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak today
to Senator Eaton's inquiry, one that is very important to all Canadians across
the country.

There is no doubt in my mind that the people of Canada have the right to know
about foreign foundations' involvement in our country's domestic affairs. It is
important to draw Canadians' attention to the mean-spiritedness of some
charitable organizations, organizations that are beyond the reach of the Canada
Revenue Agency Act. Honourable senators, such practices should not be tolerated.
Revenue Canada should immediately reassure Canadians about these practices,
which I would call Machiavellian. These practices must be brought out into the
open.

[English]

Honourable senators, where I come from, without a doubt we would call Senator
Eaton's inquiry a trailblazer. We must together put a stop to the interference
of foreign foundations in Canada's domestic affairs. We have many examples of
those foundations muddling in the business of our country. I believe they abuse
the laws of Revenue Canada. Yes, honourable senators, we must together — I say
``together,'' but I have been here for a little over three years and I know that
although they say our chamber is apolitical, it is not — we must together put an
end to this unfair practice that impacts every area of Canada.

I want to take this opportunity to inform honourable senators about some of
the practices used by some foreign foundations now operating in Canada. There is
no doubt in my mind that they are masking the truth about who we are as
Canadians, and they contribute to seeding doubt in the minds of our people.

One must remember — and I will have the opportunity to share information with
Senator Mercer.

One must remember and be reminded. I want to acknowledge what President Obama
said in 2010 at the State of the Union address. He warned that the existence of
super PACs would ``open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign
companies — to spend without limits.'' He went on to state, ``I don't think
American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests,
and worse, by foreign entities.''

We must be reminded of the psychology of those charities and foundations that
are commonly referred to as PACs, political action committees, a psychology that
I understand, and a psychology that I have seen — the good, the bad and the
ugly. While PACs are legal in the United States, they are illegal in Canada, and
we must not sanction their mischievous and malicious messages in our country. If
so, they will put in jeopardy — and I say ``if so'' — they will put in jeopardy
our sovereignty.

Nevertheless, we have in North America some foundations that have had an
impact on the quality of life of Canadians. Some foundations that have done so I
will label as ``good foundations.'' We can look at these foundations and see
they have actually helped move the vision of North America, let alone globally.

One of these great foundations is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I want
to share with you that their mission is about health, from HIV/AIDS to malaria,
nutrition, polio and vaccine- preventable disease. Thumbs up for that
foundation.

There is the Ford Foundation, which believes that all people should have the
opportunity to reach their fullest potential, contribute to society and have a
voice in the decisions that affect them.

There is the Rockefeller Foundation, which is an outstanding foundation. It
supports work that expands opportunity and strengthens resilience to social,
economic, health and environmental challenges, and has done so since 1913.

There is also the Canadian Tire Foundation for Families, another good
foundation, which has a clear and precise mission to provide a helping hand to
families in need by ensuring life's basic needs are met.

There is the Baxter International Foundation. Their primary mission and
purpose is to make a positive and lasting impact on health care and the health
of communities around the world.

Honourable senators, I could go on and on, but time does not permit me.
However, I want to bring to your attention some of the qualified bad, not to
mention ugly, foundations, namely the David Suzuki Foundation, the Packard
Foundation, the Mott Foundation, the Sierra Club Foundation, the Hewlett
Foundation, the Ecojustice Canada Bullitt Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation and Tides Canada. Yes, honourable senators, there is also the
Greenpeace International foundation.

Senator Duffy: They are all anti-Canadian.

An Hon. Senator: Oh, oh.

Senator Mockler: That is not what we are saying, Senator Munson. What
we are saying is they should stand up and believe in the Canadian vision with a
Canadian objective, that we are entitled to make our own decisions.

The main purpose is too often seen as hijacking our Canadian agenda. We have
seen them many a time on television and heard them on our radios, and I believe
that a charity should not take part in an illegal or a partisan, political
activity. There is, honourable senators — and I ask the Honourable Senators
Mercer and Munson to please listen and they will learn.

What are prohibited activities? One should be reminded as to what prohibited
activities are. Charities should not directly or indirectly support a political
party or candidate for public office with the main purpose of having its own
views or its own agenda and disregarding our sovereignty in Canada.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, we are aware of many examples of interference by certain
foundations and their questionable practices.

(1540)

We have seen a number of activities that demonstrate the efforts made by
charitable organizations to influence the government's main concern, Canada. Let
us look at some of their activities.

There are so many examples, but I would like to share with you today some
activities that will allow us to discern and recognize that, most of the time,
they consist of dirty tricks, which cannot be tolerated here in Canada.

You will certainly remember when Paul McCartney went to Newfoundland and
Labrador to protest against the seal hunt. The former premier, Danny Williams,
proved beyond a doubt that Mr. McCartney and his accomplice had incorrect
information.

[English]

Without a doubt, Canadians, regardless of where we live in this country of
ours, are known for our fairness, our respect and our sense of responsibility
towards our communities. Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that foreign
interests have their own agenda. Let us remind ourselves of the fierce
opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Many groups in Canada receive funds from American foundations to oppose
economic development in our own country. That is not acceptable.

An Hon. Senator: They want our people unemployed.

Senator Mockler: Let us be reminded of the Keystone XL pipeline as
another prime example. Even the David Suzuki Foundation, in collaboration with
Greenpeace, did its best to confuse and oppose energy projects from coast to
coast to coast. We saw them in New Brunswick, we saw them in Nova Scotia, we saw
them in Quebec, we saw them in Ontario, and we also saw them in Western Canada.

An Hon. Senator: They want to keep us poor.

Senator Mockler: Honourable senators, I want to spare you the long
list of projects that the bad and the ugly foundations oppose in our country.
Many previous speakers have touched on these and others will.

However, I strongly believe that, as Canadians, decisions regarding our
sovereignty must and should be made by Canadians.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Mockler: The future of Canada belongs to Canadians, with the
main objective of keeping in mind our priorities and our values.

Honourable senators, some people will dislike some decisions; however, the
majority of Canadians on May 2, 2011, entrusted Prime Minister Stephen Harper
with a strong, stable, majority with Canadian values and a mandate to govern
based on Canadian interests and not on the interests of foreign foundations or
people supporting foreign foundations.

An Hon. Senator: Well said.

Senator Mockler: We are on the right track. One only has to read this
article stating overwhelmingly that over 80 per cent of the world would love to
be Canadian. Why? The answer is very simple. Because of our friendliness, we are
welcoming people. Our rights and freedoms are respected and we have the best
quality of life in the world. Last, but not least, Canadians are tolerant people
from coast to coast to coast, from different racial and cultural backgrounds.

Honourable senators, the time has come for the Canada Revenue Agency to close
that gap, to close the loopholes for those foreign foundations with their sole
purpose of making Canada look unpleasant and undesirable in other parts of the
world.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Mockler: Honourable senators, let us stand together to make
sure that Canada will continue to be the envy of the world. We must be resolved
and firm in order to ensure that we will continue to develop our natural
resources based on scientific data rather than personal foreign agendas. By
doing so, Canada will stand strong and stable, and it will remain a country to
be envied globally. I hear senators on the left side of the Speaker laughing,
but to do nothing will be a setback.

We believe that, in being steadfast, unwavering, firm and committed, we will
reassure Canadians that our country will continue to be the best country in the
world in which to live, work, raise our children and reach out to the most
vulnerable.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Mockler: Since 2008, even with the worst economic meltdown
Canada and other countries have seen, we Canadians have outshone and still
outshine the other global leaders. Canada is being hailed by other world
leaders. That is directly linked to Canada's present, far-seeing leadership
under our Prime Minister.

I would ask my honourable colleagues on the other side to come with me, to
knock on the doors and we will, honourable senators, go to Tim Hortons and
McDonald's, and Canadians will tell us what they think about the leadership of
Canada right now.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I regret to inform the
honourable senator that his time has expired. Is he asking the chamber for more
time?

Senator Mockler: I would ask for five more minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is five minutes
granted?

Senator Mockler: With the cooperation of everyone, I would ask for the
five minutes.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Duffy: We have just arrived at Tim Hortons. We cannot leave
now.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.

Senator Mockler: We can share a laugh on both sides. I believe that we
should. As a senator from New Brunswick, I believe we will not let any
foundation hijack our agenda because the people, regardless of where they live,
must defend Canadian values. We have created wealth and quality jobs since 2006.
We will continue being focused on the economy and we will always keep in mind
our democratic values.

In closing, there is no doubt in my mind that people do not care who we are
until they know what we care for. Honourable senators, on the right side of the
Speaker, we care for the people of Canada, and I will also include the ones
immediately to the left of the Speaker.

Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Would Senator Mockler
entertain a question?

Senator Mockler: Yes.

Senator Cowan: In his comments, the honourable senator spoke of the
bad and the ugly, and he talked about illegal activities. Would the honourable
senator please identify some specific examples of illegal activities and which
bad and ugly foundation he is speaking of?

Senator Mockler: I will remind the honourable senator to reread my
speech. On this, I would remind him to basically take time to read the quote of
President Obama which I read. Thank you.

Senator Cowan: He is the one? President Obama?

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: I am wondering in which category the Federal
Reserve Bank of the United States fits in the honourable senator's listing?

Senator Mockler: With regard to his question, I would ask the
honourable senator to read the list in my speech.

(1550)

Senator Moore: That was not much of an answer, but with reference to
the good senator's remarks about preserving Canadian autonomy, sovereignty and
the Canadian agenda, what does he have to say about the hundreds of billions of
dollars given by the Federal Reserve Bank under the TARP funds to the Canadian
chartered banks?

Senator Mockler: Honourable senators, I must admit that I believe the
comment made and the question asked by the honourable senator does not reflect
the tone of my speech and does not reflect what I said on foreign foundations.

Senator Moore: Let me remind the honourable senator that he was
talking about the Canadian agenda. He was talking about foreign influence of a
few million dollars by some corporations, but I am talking about hundreds of
billions of dollars by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank with respect to our
chartered banks.

Senator Mockler: Honourable senators, I have always fought for the
most vulnerable. I will also share with you that when I see any foundation or
groups trying to dictate what will be the agenda of Canadians, I will not accept
that. I will always strive, honourable senators, to make my province and our
Canada, coast to coast to coast, a better place to live, a better place to work,
a better place to raise our children and a better place to reach out to the most
vulnerable. The leader that we have today is being hailed by all global leaders
because Canada is on the right track and we will continue to do that.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators,
the Senate will now suspend pending a report from His Excellency the Governor
General of Canada and honourable senators will be called back to a 15-minute
bell.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following
communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

March 13, 2012

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston,
Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to
the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 13th day of March,
2012, at 3:32 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace
Secretary to the Governor General

The Honourable
The Speaker of the Senate
Ottawa

Bill Assented to Tuesday, March 13, 2012:

An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the
State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice
Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts (Bill
C-10, Chapter 1, 2012)